The "Lennie Rule"

A NYT article discusses an upcoming Supreme Court case that might clarify to some degree the guidelines to determine the degree of mental retardation necessary for it to be a bar to the death penalty. The Supreme Court gave the states broad discretion here and I have my doubts the case will do that much to change things.  The article references Texas:

Both prosecutors and defense lawyers in Texas are looking to the high court for clarity when it comes to evaluating intellectual disability.  Texas lawmakers have been unable to pass a law creating a standard, so the existing criteria come from a 2004 decision from the state’s Court of Criminal Appeals in the case of Jose Garcia Briseño. The appeals court invoked, in part, an evaluation of Lennie from John Steinbeck’s 1937 novel “Of Mice and Men,” writing that "most Texas citizens would agree that Steinbeck’s Lennie should, by virtue of his lack of reasoning ability and adaptive skills, be exempt from execution.  But does a consensus of Texas citizens agree that all persons who might legitimately qualify for assistance under the social services definition of mental retardation be exempt from an otherwise constitutional penalty?"

This upset Steinbeck's son:

Steinbeck’s son Thomas described the court’s reliance on the fictional character as “insulting, outrageous, ridiculous and profoundly tragic.”

Jane Austen had a character in Northanger Abbey speak of the value of novels, in part since they provide the "most thorough knowledge of human nature."  I do not think Thomas Steinbeck, therefore, should be insulted. The reference was used as an example of what a "consensus" test of the term would entail in practice. The opinion merely cites Lennie once in its extended discussion of the appropriate test. The whole thing is likely not to be an exact science and a reference to character could be useful to provide a type of archetype, a representative inmate.

Legal opinions use fictional references, including of Shakespeare or the Bible, to make their points. So, putting aside "in part" being a tad vague, the response by Steinbeck's son is misguided. He should be appreciative that his father was seen as so intuitive of the human character.  The other labels used are similarly misguided -- it is not "outrageous" etc. either. Who knows the full context of such things -- quotes in articles are so opaque at times -- but what is "profoundly tragic" about using him? You might get the idea that the whole opinion sets up a "Lennie Rule" and is a quasi-literature analysis of the character or something.  It was a citation.

Anyway, Supreme Court rulings in the criminal justice or any number of areas provide at best a floor and overall guideline of what must be done. When it comes to mental retardation, insanity or any number of other imperfect lines, there will be a lot of room along the edges. This doesn't mean there should be no line -- insanity is a basic concept in law when applying guilt. It is far from crystal clear in each case. Hopefully, the case will clarify things somewhat.  And, if Lennie can help, go at it.